That would seem that they reported fake news that could have caused panic but later on just conveniently issued an erratum.
> You can check them yourself
So, it's a standard that "journalists" can disregard with impunity.
> Duterte is in a position of power to actively act against these journalists
But Pres. Duterte does not as this Bloomberg article clearly shows. Maria Ressa still speaks freely and accuses him openly. That's one less reason to label him as a dictator don't you think? I think I will commend him for that. For upholding freedom of speech.
> Examples: [1] [2]
Regarding the live updates[1], He called it out because it may endanger the soldiers. How should you call them out and get them in check instead?
Regarding the NUJP's condemnation[2], Nieto seems to be joking. Well, I consider jokes and figure of speeches as gray areas in freedom of speech. I don't have to defend him anyway. He can do that for himself.
> Again, you _do not_ peddle opinion to hold people accountable
I just playfully used your words peddle and opinion. Calm down :) That may have made it vague. What I meant is that he effectively raises issues using his words such as the Dengvaxia scandal. Now that it has gained awareness, we may now expect accountability to those who administered it during the past and the present administration. I hate it that the people responsible did it to the children out of greed.
> I'm not saying Duterte is credit grabbing but that people are giving him more credit than he is due. There's a difference there.
Well, I'm giving Pres. Duterte credit because he delivered what the previous administration did not. That's the big difference there.
> Because even in legislation, there's a due process that must be followed and the previous administration followed it. Even if for a bill like FOI which I fully support, I will be critical of Aquino had he dubiously manipulated the legislative process just so he could claim the FOI under his belt.
Maybe you should be critical of Aquino if you really fully support FOI. Knowingly that legislative is slow, he should have at least issued an executive order just as Pres. Duterte did. You just gave me another reason to give Pres. Duterte credit because he found a way to do it quickly in his first few months what the previous administration wasn't able to do after many years in office. Maybe you should too ;)
[1] http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/10/04/1745517/blogger... [2] http://www.mindanews.com/statements/2017/11/statement-nujp-o...
You are taking excerpts of my response out-of-context to argue your point.
Again, they had reason to believe it was true, because the information came from a source they trust (AFP/the news wire). I would not call it "fake news" if they admitted the case from the other side later on.
If you'd sneer at people admitting their own mistakes (like by issuing errata)...well I hope you don't make mistakes of your own.
> So, it's a standard that "journalists" can disregard with impunity.
You are the only one saying that. If their reporting does not check out with their references, they lose credibility at best or get sued for libel at worst.
> But Pres. Duterte does not
I am not claiming that he is doing it. I am claiming that he _can_ do it. He CAN dictate the police/influence regulating bodies to strangle institutions. In contrast, these institutions do not have any similar influence. That is why, unless you are using the word "dictator" in a context other than political, you cannot label institutions as dictators.
> Regarding the live updates[1], He called it out because it may endanger the soldiers.
Now this, my friend, is a clear example of what you are calling "fake news that could have caused panic". Quoting the article: "But Aznar stressed that if Nieto's accusations of him endangering the troops were true, why is the Armed Forces of the Philippines still allowing him to cover the Marawi siege?" Surely, on-the-ground AFP units know better than Nieto on whether Aznar is endangering them? And yet Nieto saw it fit to raise an online hue-and-cry. Errata/apologies from Nieto: 0, nil, zilch, nada. Makes it hard to believe that his intentions were for the best interest of the AFP (and in fact, had that been the case, would it not make more sense to discreetly raise the matter to AFP, seeing that he has contacts in the government the ordinary Filipino does not?).
And also,
> Regarding the NUJP's condemnation[2], Nieto seems to be joking.
Imagine if a professional journalist made "jokes" in bad taste like that. Imagine the professional backlash they would face. And yet Nieto who keeps passing off his opinions as "fact" is not held to the same standard.
Point: any professional journalist who value their own credibility would be careful not to say things like this, joking or not.
> What I meant is that he effectively raises issues using his words such as the Dengvaxia scandal.
Ends do not justify means. You originally raised Nieto's part in exposing Dengvaxia in response to me labeling Nieto as "fake news". I stand by my original assertion and that even if Nieto's role in exposing Dengvaxia is significant, that does not redeem him from all the other times he peddled baseless accusations or outright lies.
> he found a way to do it quickly in his first few months what the previous administration wasn't able to do after many years in office
Duterte would not have been able to implement it quickly were it not for the legislative foundations (House meetings, Senate deliberations, etc.) that happened in the previous administration. It is not as if all the work on this bill was done exclusively by Duterte's administration. To claim that the previous administration weren't able to do anything for FOI after many years in office is outright false.
In fact, no amount of executive orders can will an ordinary bill into a strong law in a matter of months. Should any president try, there are checks and balances in the government (hi Supreme Court) that could question the process and hold the implementation. Heck the RH Bill took its sweet time before it even became a document awaiting a president's signature and it was still issued a TRO for over a year. Not to mention that today, the RH Law is a toothless version of what was originally passed.
Because that's what came from the news wire, which as I pointed out is standard practice for professional journalists. News wires work under the assumption that the origin of the story (AFP in this case), have verified the story themselves. In case a mistake happens (as it sometimes does, as it seemingly did here), reporting outlets issue erratum.
> Who checks them? They're not infallible just like the bloggers.
You can check them yourself. One of the hallmarks of proper journalism is citing your references and, in cases where your references request anonymity, publish _other_ references which would either corroborate or rebut your other reference. It is this nuance that makes journalism "professional", a trait which these bloggers sorely lack: Mocha Uson, when asked whether she even tried _at least once_ to ask for an account from the other side (Bam Aquino in this case) invokes her right to "self-discrimi...err...incrimination". Oldest way to cop-out in the book.
> ...and still label Pres. Duterte as dictator. Who's the dictator in that case?
Assuming without conceding that traditional media is wrong in labeling these bloggers as trolls, the difference between them and Duterte is that Duterte is in a position of power to actively act against these journalists. On the other hand, all journalism can do is make their case (in a _professional_ manner) and let the public/other offices of government decide. By themselves, they cannot act against bloggers, let alone the government.
> The same RJ Nieto who is one of the people to be the first to raise the issue about Dengvaxia...
As you can tell, I don't waste my time following Nieto. Aware as I am on the issue of Dengvaxia, I'd withhold judgement on whether Nieto did this in a proper and professional manner.
However, assuming without conceding that this act from Nieto is praiseworthy, this does not change the fact that in most other instances, Nieto fails in basic journalistic rigor, bordering if not crossing over to acts of trolling. Examples: [1] [2]
> I think RJ Nieto peddles his opinion quite well to make people accountable.
Again, you _do not_ peddle opinion to hold people accountable; you hold them accountable with cold, hard, verifiable facts. How can you demand accountability based on opinions from people which, as you yourself concedes, are not infallible? Double whammy there.
> Please don't try to frame it as if he is credit grabbing.
I'm not saying Duterte is credit grabbing but that people are giving him more credit than he is due. There's a difference there.
> Even so, why didn't the previous administration just signed and implemented it?
Because even in legislation, there's a due process that must be followed and the previous administration followed it. Even if for a bill like FOI which I fully support, I will be critical of Aquino had he dubiously manipulated the legislative process just so he could claim the FOI under his belt.
[1] http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/10/04/1745517/blogger...
[2] http://www.mindanews.com/statements/2017/11/statement-nujp-o...